Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade?

The Pentax K-1 Mark II is a supremely weather-sealed, tough-built full-frame camera with a 36MP stabilized sensor. Billed as more a refinement of its predecessor than a replacement, the K-1 II gains a new hand-held Pixel Shift mode and sees improvements made to its AF Tracking algorithm - it also has a new pre-processor. Unfortunately, our testing reveals this additional processor applies full-time noise reduction to Raw files resulting in inferior image quality to that of its predecessor at higher ISO values.

Key features:

36.2MP full-frame CMOS sensor with no anti-aliasing filter

5-axis sensor-shift image stabilization

100% pentaprism viewfinder with 0.70x magnification

33-point AF system (25 cross-type)

Updated AF Tracking algorithm

New hand-held Pixel Shift mode

Extensive weather-sealing

1/200 sec flash sync speed

14-bit Raw recording (DNG or PEF)

Built-in GPS with electro-magnetic compass and Astrotracer function

4.4 fps continuous shooting (6.5 fps in APS-C crop mode)

1080/30p video

Wi-Fi

The K-1 II faces stiff competition from other full frame models at this price point, many of which out-spec it across the board. But for landscape and adventure shooters, you'd be hard-pressed to find a full frame camera with as many useful and unique features, like built-in GPS, an Astrotracer mode for night sky photography, sensor shift technology, and LED lights on the body (to assist in the dark).

Over the course of several weeks, we've put the K-1 II through its paces in both the field and in our test lab. Read on to see how it performed and how it stacks up as a whole against the competition.

What's new and how it compares

Here's what's new in the K-1 II plus how it compares to existing models from other companies.

So the Nikon D850 also weighs over 1kg (without battery) - it's the price you pay for a robust weather-sealed DSLR -the battery life isn't great, but it's only a mid-term refresh of the K-1 - and the batteries are much cheaper than for the Nikon - you just carry more. Really not an issue.

The D850 is a professional tool.Its battery life alone is 1840 shots, rather than the K-1 II's 670.

FPS: The D850 does 9 frames per second, the K-7 II not even half of that, with lame 4.4 FPS.

So the K-2 II is in many respects just "a fraction" of a D850. For that performance characteristics, it is just way to big. For the K-1 II market segment (hobbyists) probably unecessary and unwelcome.

Once Pentaxians were so proud of their APSC cameras not being big hogs, and I could totally follow their thinking regarding weight and size.

Like I fully understand today the reasons why many go to mirrorless (Fuji or Sony) (or even Olympus and Panasonic). Same thing. E.g. quite many Fuji users had fullframe DSLRs before, but eventually got tired of the bulk & weight penalty.

@migus Dpreview just tests the default jpeg settings. It is not a test of the Jpeg engine. Just the default profile and automatic NR setting. If you can't dive in the menu's and tweak the settings yourself, you have no business buying a camera like this.

listen, @dpthoughts, you're just exposing yourself as somebody with an ingrained prejudice if not a downright troll - you make too many unfounded, unsupported negative assertions about Pentax and seem to regard them as truth. At the very least, your point of view is not helpful and ill-informnd. I see no point in further discussion

dpthoughts, my god. What is your problem? The K-1 or K-1ii is not a professional tool? According to you? And it was a fail? I beg to differ and have made a lot of money using the DFA* 70-200 and K-1. The K-1 is the first FF for Pentax, and quite a bit less cost than what dpreview compares it against. If the K-1 or K-1ii was over $3k, you might have a better argument, but for what it is (a very capable camera), the K-1 checks the boxes for what I need for my business.

I hold Pentax in quite high respect, mainly for sentimental reasons. However, in the last decades i shot (in order) FF Nikon, some Canon, then I moved to APS-C Samsung NX, and eventually to Sony E-mount. As an aging enthusiast I was hunting for the most IQ/gram my $ can buy (body+lens). Obviously I'm not loyal to any brand and willing to learn new systems - as long as I can still adapt my lens rooster - NX and E-mount being most versatile. I'd perhaps wish a Pentax, though it seems hopeless according to my IQ/gram figure of merit. Luckily the E-mount bodies meet my expectations.

dpthoughts: What in your elitist mind do you consider professional? Not every professional shoots studio or weddings? For landscape the K1 or K1II are most certainly professional field cameras, as were Pentax medium format film and digital systems before them. I've sold almost 3/4 million $ in prints over the last 14 years, the majority of them taken with Pentax cameras. What have you done?

I don't think anybody who cares about the noise reduction issue is going to shoot JPEGs, so the JPEG engine really doesn't need fixing, IMO . RAW is more of a concern.

Re: battery life, my K-1 II came with a free battery grip as part of its kit. I can put 6 AA batteries in it. I used 6 low-self discharge Amazon 2400 mAh batteries, which are rumored to be clones of Eneloop pros. Of course, this adds weight, but many pros will shoot with a battery grip if they are concerned about running out of battery. So far, I have done only about a thousand shots and there is no sign of either the main battery or the AAs running out.

BTW, the Ikea 2450 mAh low-self discharge AAs also cost $6.99 for a pack of 4. Also clones of Eneloops. They will last years and not self-discharge like all Li-On batteries do. One of the main reasons I got into Pentax 10 years ago with a K200D was the ability to use AAs in the body. My K-30 can too. With the K-1 II, a battery grip is required, though. I probably will never buy a second Li-On battery for my K-1 II and stick with AAs. I have >100 AA rechargeable batteries, mostly Eneloops. Many are about 10 years old back from when I got my K200D. I measured their capacity in a spreadsheet back then, and they have dropped about 20% in total capacity over 10 years.

Keep in mind different lenses were used, and much of the upper part of the picture in the K-1 II is soft, especially upper-right corner.If you compare those parts, yes, the K-1 looks better, but it really has nothing to do with the body, and especially not the noise reduction. You can see this lens softness even at ISO 100.

Look in the bottom parts of the shots, and then it's a totally different story. K-1 II looks better than K-1 in just about every case.

Shame on DPReview and all the people believing everything they write without sticking to own thougs and objective criterias. The K-1 II is at least as good as the K-1 and the additional features does improve it that much the label "II" is there for a reason.

Pentax can't be blamed for developing products which delivers great image quality but get subjective and unprofessional reviews from companies which prefer to support ony some brands.

What a shame dpreview changes it's review guidelines and test environment to every camera and don't do anything constant besides the static test image background.

The "K-1 II is at least as good as the K-1" is fanboy talk. The K-1 II has a worse image quality due to blurring RAWs even at lower ISOs.

That Pentax doesn't have primes on offer, which could outresolve the sensor apart from the very center of the frame, that is not DPR's problem. That is a lens engineering qualification problem. Both Pentax lenses suffer from that, as evident in comparision against e.g. the Nikon D810, D850, or a7r III, whose primes are good enough for the sensor (so that they are far superior to both Pentax lenses).

The raw blurring at lower ISO has been cross-checked by mathematical noise analyses, which use the flat patches (AFAIK). There, the poor performance of Pentax primes can't be blamed for the evidences and conclusions.

The conclusions are made by dpreview, only objective opinions people can tell about is they prefer the more noisy K-1 images or the less noisy but a bit less sharp K-1 II images. Why didn't dpreview use the same lens like in the test of the K-1 ?Pentax offers great primes, especially the D FA 100mm Makro WR. It's not at all a problem connected to Pentax.

utphoto, even pixel peeing at 100% (200% doesn't make sense), I find the image of the K-1 II preferable everywhere in the lower half of the test shot, regardless of ISO . Upper parts are blurred by optics in the K-1 II shots and need to be disregarded.

I'm not sure if the K-1 (II) is a fraction of the D850. It is hard to compare to other cameras, being a 36MP fullframe body for under 2000 euros.

When the original K-1 came out, it already offered 36MP for the same price, and people took notice because that was interesting. But most of the changes to the Mk II don't really matter. I at least don't care whether my camera or my RAW converter cleans up noise, and I'd rather have the choice. The handheld pixel shift apparently has some drawbacks as well. The remaining improvement is AF-C. And that's good, but it still lags behind.

And while there still is no other 36MP FF camera for 2000 euros, the Sony A7 III did not exist when the original K-1 came out, and the D810 was way more expensive. So it is not as easy to recommend the K-1 II anymore. For people interested in these cameras, I think the best news is that the original K-1 is cheaper now. And it is still a very good outdoor landscape camera.

I always saw the 36 mp as a bait, but once someone got trapped in FF Pentax K, they get struck hard by the bills for lens purchases.

As a ~2000 camera for 36MP, the D810 is probably the best buy now? because you would have access to the cheaper Tamron originals (rather than the more expensive Pentax relabeled versions of them). And also many more options.

Say, if you were happy with a budget lens for only occasional telephoto.

With your Nikon, you could get the cheap, good, and very popular Tamron 70-300mm Di VC USD for ~300.

With Pentax K for fullframe, you would have to bang your head against the wall after you studied options?

This the bad thing about traps, you can't move forwards of backwards much, you are restricted to the very limited option space the trap gives to you.

So you end up with paying much more than with other options, when looking at the total cost of ownership.

@dpthoughts That is your perception. When people spend this kind of money on a camera, you'd hope they'd check out lens prices as well. And madbrain actually has a cheap collection of lenses for his K-1.

Having said that, I do agree that the lens options for the F-mount look better than those for the K-mount.

Sounds like a Canon story. Make a new version (6D MKII), but the older version is better.

Reading some of the popular comments, makes me want to get the popcorn and smile :) I wonder back in the film days, if people were so anal about their gear...or did they just go out and make money...worth thinking about...

No idea, but it would probably have cost them way too much to do these kinds of tests in terms of how much film needed to be purchased and developed. With digital, we are only wearing out our shutters with lives in the hundreds of thousands, and flash cards.

While I very much dislike that Pentax has apparently reduced sharpness in a manner that cannot be overridden by the user, I must admit that my judgement is based on pixel-peeping. One experiment that could inform better judgement about the real-world impact of this issue would be to produce some actual physical prints of the highest-achievable quality in varying sizes, of various subjects under varying conditions, from both old and new versions of this camera (as well as competing models), have them evaluated by a panel of critical observers, and ascertain statistically at what degree of enlargement any quality decrease would be noticeable and when it'd be objectionable, as well as how the output of this camera compares to others.

It'd surely be a bit of work, but beyond this issue, it could also help informed decision-making about when we actually need 36, 42, 46, or 50 mp, and when 24 mp is enough.

If you are going to pixel-peep and compare K-1 vs K-1 II test shots from DPR, please look at the lower part of the shots. This is because many parts in the upper half are blurred, especially upper right corner. You can see this clearly even at ISO 100 , so that has nothing to do with noise reduction.

Using the same lens on a K1 and K1II, placed side by side, with the files processed identically and then made into 30x40 prints, I'd bet there would be no one posting here that could tell the difference at a normal viewing distance. But I must admit the writing style of this review has turned it into a masterful piece of click bait.

Good point indeed. Most people being critical on the sharpness in this review will actually never display wide enough to notice any difference. That's how silly it is. A few will print no even large enough to ever appreciate the difference between a K1 and a K1 II.

pentaust, I don't think that's necessarily a valid point. Many photos are made from crops. I think pros will often compose with some margin to allow for crop and prints in different formats, if their lens allows. Crops are actually one of the reasons to own a high-resolution camera like the K-1 II. If the crops are soft, that is an issue, IMO. However, the main evidence of softness I am seeing in the K-1 II test shots is in the upper part of the image, even at ISO 100, and that has nothing to do with noise reduction. Almost everywhere else in the bottom half looks sharp and detailed with the K-1 II at all ISOs, and better than K-1, at least to my eyes, if not to FFT measurements.

I didn't see any testing of the Astro Tracer function. On the Pentax site it says:

"Coupled with in-body SR (Shake Reduction) mechanism and GPS, this function easily tracks and photographs astronomical body such as stars. The latitude obtained by the GPS function and camera position (horizontal/vertical tilt and facing direction) detected by the magnetic and acceleration sensors are used to calculate the movement of astronomical body. The CMOS sensor is synchronized with the movement of astronomical body, making it possible to capture stars as points of light not as trails of light even during long exposures."

However... the pictures they use as an example show trees or mountains at the bottom of the image. If the sensor is moving to accomadate the stars, wouldn't it also be smearing the stationary mountains and trees at the bottom of the image?

To use astrotracer or any kind of tracker and include stationary objects in the frame, like trees or landscape you need to perform two shots one for the sky part with astrotracer and another without it, then merge them in post processing. Maybe they didnt clarify that?

If you are on a multi-shot workflow, like all serious night sky hobbyist, you don't need stuff like an "astro tracer" anyway.And for deep space / supertele, the sensor travel distance is much too short for any longer exposures. If you are serious about that hobby you need a real tracker for the tripod anyway.

@dpthoughts You are wrong. Astrotracer is a great tool, and you can get very nice pics with wide lens, or with a bright target (Andromeda galaxy) you can go to a 300 mm tele."But the bigger the better" - you just said K-1II is too big...

No beware, the camera shouln't be unnecessarily big, that destabilizes the tripod unnecessarily. For tripod work, the smaller and lighter the camera, the better. With trackers it is like with tripods: for they it is benefical to be bigger or heavier. For the camera this is a detrimental contribution to stability.

My "K-1 II is to big" statement was more referring to 1- weight is a penalty esp. when carrying all day, e.g. on vacations or trips2- not possible to turn the camera into a very small setup, e.g. with the help of a pancake or other compact primes3- on touristy spots, too-big cameras catch attention from thieves or robbers4- near public buildings, too-big cameras catch attention from security staff5- street photo, weddings etc: too-big cameras catch attention of subjects, so shots are not candid any longer, you get more duckfaces and funny faces, or angry faces instead

These points were all unrelated to the tripod stability penalty of too-big cameras ;)

dpthoughts, IMO, if you want a small light camera, no DSLR from any brand is going to be the solution. Even an MILC is not pocketable. I love my Lumix DC-GX85, which I use for video, but even with the 12-32 pancake lake that retracts. A smartphone or compact camera really is the only option if you want small and light.

For astrophotography, none of your 4 listed concerns apply. Indeed, lenses are often going to be as heavy as the body, if not more. I own a massive Rokinon 800mm mirror lens that weighs over 2lbs just on its own. It is overall not sharp, but that's about the weight of the K-1. I can mount it on my micro 4/3 body too, but that looks a bit silly. It's not a sharp lens, though. Serious people into astro will use heavy mounts and telescopes.

Someone like me who is just curious can use a light tripod combined with a body and astrotracer, like a K-30 with O-GPS1 or K-1 / K-1 II which have it built-in.

For deep space objects such as galaxies, with super tele, they travel so fast across the viewfinder that you can watch it. There, the sensor's travel path is much too short for a required long exposure.

@dpthoughts you will never get it coz you never used it and you are too close minded in your own ideas, have you at least looked at the samples i linked? It seems to know more about astrotracer results than people who have really used it.

@dpthoughtsif you mean an article like this https://www.lonelyspeck.com/sony-a7s-astrophotography-review/that appears in your results, i can really kick it's ass with my cheao K3II and astrotracer without having to do stacking stacking, of course i could also stack astroraced shots and kick it a bit more. as for a separate device for larger focals i got the ioptron skyguider pro, it is big and heavy and you need to align it precisely. Astrotracer weights nothing, does require little configuration or almost none, and can extend exposure time of wide angle lens to minutes, as the samples i have provided that you never checked. A friend of mine with an D810 was amazed when i show her the astrotracer shots compared what she could get with her camera, and she needed to do a lot of stacking to get similar results. So... again, you say is useless but have never used it, and you pick some complaints about it to discredit it, i say the opposite having used it.

The old a7s was the only one affected visibly by the so called star eater issue, i.e. strong hot pixel removal for 4 second exposures or longer.

For other older models than the a7s, this was regarded as hardly in issue (especially the r models).

With the newer III models, it seems gone now.

Someone posted an a7rIII picture with former "star eater" prone exposure times, but the picture with the long exposure doesn't have less stars. It seemingly has even more, but only seemingly (due to more brightness and less noise).

Given the overall noise superiority of the newest BSI sensors with dual gain pixel amplifiers, be it below or above 4 seconds, Sony would be my 1st choice now for astro / night sky photography probably.

"the K-1 II has worse image quality than its predecessor"Do you really think Ricoh would have launched the K-1 II if this was true? Maybe Ricoh imaging has limited development resources, but this accusation implies that the engineers are totally disqualified.I would at least double check the test configuration with different hardware (lenses, bodies) before making this bold statement which could have fatal impact to a small imaging division.

An extra stop of detail cannot be applied by the "highlight correction" in either RAW or JPEG when shooting in M mode, since the exposure in this case is completely manual - ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Applying an extra stop would be overriding the manual exposure settings in some way. DPR is using manual exposure mode for the test shots.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/14K-5 - Expanded Dynamic Range FunctionThe K-5 features a highlight expansion function which applies to both JPEG and RAW; shadow expansion can also be applied to the camera's JPEG output. With Highlight correction activated ISO 160 becomes the minimum sensitivity setting, and the tone curve is flatter in the highlights giving an extra stop or so of highlight range. If you compare the K-5's dynamic range curve with hghlight correction turned on against the Nikon D7000's default output, you can see that they match almost exactly. Since the two cameras share closely-related sensors, this strongly suggests that the Nikon is essentially performing an equivalent to highlight correction by default. The noise floor of both cameras is low enough to do so without any serious penalty in noise levels, and for this reason we'd recommending keeping highlight protection activated on the K-5.

Conjure, I don't think that the K-1 II failure "implies that the engineers are totally disqualified."

I would rather think that they would have loved to update the old sensor with a newer model, so that the aging K-1 Mark 1 could catch up with the benchmarks set bei Nikon D850 and Sony a7(r) III.

But probably the engineers were forbidden to update hardware in a way, which would have made it more expensive. Probably the Ricoh top managers are the culprits, should they have introduced a very strict cost reduction campaign, letting the engineers no room to breathe. So that only software gimmicks / tweaks / cheats are within their budget limits.

Conjure, once again, where does it say that the highlight correction function does anything in M mode ? It appears that its main function is to change exposure. This is pretty clear, since you are forced into choosing a different ISO per your own quote. In M mode, all exposure is controlled manually by the photographer, by definition. Thus, the highlight correction cannot possibly have any effect.

IMO, the main problem with the DP review is that large parts of the test shots - in the upper and upper-right quadrants - are blurred, not so much their findings, although I have a different opinions about them. Many people are pixel-peeing them and seeing that blur, and attributing to the body, when it is actually the lens or alignment. You can see the blur at ISO 100, so it isn't noise reduction. DPR should not publish those test shots with such large amounts of blur. It certainly looks unprofessional.

I very much agree in principle, but one needs to keep matters in proportion.

RAW data manipulation is very common. Other manufacturers are guilty of that as well. Manipulations often only start at higher ISO ranges, but the idea that one receives pure raw sensor data from other cameras is not tenable.

I wish DPReview would have put more effort into demonstrating the claimed loss of detail. How much detail from a K-1 file can be retained if one applies equivalent levels of noise reduction in post processing?

What levels of detail at high ISO shots are real and which are just an optical illusion? Have you ever added noise in post-production and thought that the image looked noisier but also crisper?

I'm 100% with anyone who says the K-1 II noise removal should be optional. No debate. I cannot help but think Ricoh made a mistake. Personally, I prefer the K-1 and that's not the response a manufacturer wants after releasing a "Mark II" model. However, I also don't think that the story is quite as simple as it is often presented.

Maybe, within Ricoh there are different forces, not pulling into the same direction.

I'm sure, that engineers would have loved to update the old sensor to something better, so that they catch up to the D850 and a7(r)III benchmarks.

But maybe, there is another brutal force from above, which cancels budgets and puts cost savings on top of all priorities. "Do something but don't dare to spend money on better hardware components". If so, then, software gimmicks / tweaks / cheats are the only remaining options for the engineering department.

hikerdoc, who says these models compete ? D850 is $3300, A7R III is $3200, K-1 II is $2000. Ie., the Sony costs 60% more, and the Nikon 65% more. Clearly these are not models that compete with each other based on price.

I can't speak for others, but I stretched my budget to buy a K-1 II, but wouldn't have been able to do the same for the A7R III with its limited and expensive collection of lenses, or for the D850 which needs heavier and more expensive stabilized lenses.

The only way you can say they compete is that K-1 II is the flagship full frame, but the reality is that Pentax doesn't have any FF camera over $3000. I would hope they could produce something superior if they made a camera at at that price level.

If you want to compare cameras with such large price differences, you might as well compare the D850 vs the 645Z. The 645Z costs $5500 which is 66% higher than the D850 at $3300. That happens to be nearly the same ratio as the price difference between a D850 and K-1 II.

The thing is, Nikon doesn't make a medium format camera. Neither does Sony. There would be nothing to compare.

IMO, the competitors that make the most sense for the K-1II are bodies in similar price ranges, for example the Sony A7 III (not A7R III), which costs $2000 also. With Nikon, I'm not seeing an FF DSLR around the $2000 price point. D750 is cheaper at $1500, but might still be a somewhat valid comparison when you factor in lens price. For instance, a D750 with a 24-120 lens costs $2000 whereas a K-1 II with 28-105 costs $2400, only 20% difference. And two weeks ago, I bought a K-1 II with 28-105 with free battery grip for $2400 in a promotion at B&H.

The Nikon grip for D750 costs $300, so I would have spent $2300 for a D750 with lens and grip - making the price very close. Of course, the 24 vs 28mm at the wide end actually makes a pretty big difference - the 120mm vs 105mm at the tele end less relevant.

I guess Canon also has the 6D Mark II at the $1600 price point which is fairly close. It is a cheaper body, but will probably be at a fairly similar price point to the K-1 II with lens.

It is a bit surprising that Canon and Nikon don't have a single camera body around the $1800 - 2000 price range, which were the introductory price for the K-1 and K-1 II respectively. Guess that makes Pentax unique in another way.

I'm eyeing the K-1 or a Fuji system. Can't decide if IQ or portability is most important. Thing is however that I'm a K-3 II user and whenever I switch these comparison widgets to show low iso (I'm a base iso shooter) the K-3 II looks very good indeed. Fuji x-t2/pro2 looks smudged way beyond the K-1 II noise reduction and the K-1 looks great but not miles ahead. Add the price, gps and the pixelshift which are extremely positive features for me, the K-3 II just looks like the perfect camera.

If you look at price and max IQ Pentax seems to win every time. Heavy handed NR or not.

Madbrain, Pentax is obviously hoping people purchase their offerings instead of those from the competition. They must have a target audience and the prospective buyers using the compare tools must be comparing to something. On the K1-ii product site Ricoh mentions the quest being to produce the “best” full frame DSLR. Pentax released a high MP full frame sensor DSLR and I assumed that the target audience would be those considering high MP full frame DSLR/MILC. I will let you tell me then which cameras they are trying to supplant as the “best” if it is not the high res offerings from Canon, Nikon, and Sony that everyone in the Pentax has been mentioning. I realize that compromises must be made to release a camera at 60% of the cost of cameras it is apparently not competing against. As to your other point, I am not at all interested in belittling you for purchasing a camera from Pentax that both suits your needs and fits within your budget.

Of course Pentax marketing is going to say something like that. And Canon, and Nikon certainly as well. Marketing always has to be taken with a grain of salt. I have no illusion that my new K-1 II is the best FF DSLR. Most other FF DSLRs will do far better in video for example. I bought a GX85 recently specifically for video, and I am extremely happy about it. I think the K-1 II provides a great value for shooting stills, though.

As far as which models the K-1 II compete with, you have to look at models in similar price ranges. I think Nikon D750 and Canon 6D Mark II are part of the competition for example. Bodies cost less, but if you add stabilized lenses for them, total price will be very similar with K-1 II. If you compare those 3 cameras, I think the K-1 II is a better value.

There really doesn't seem to be any other FF DSLR body sold these days under $2500 that I could find. Looks like after that, both Nikon and Canon jump to a much higher price with D850/5DS.

So, I don't think the K-1 II really competes directly with D850 and 5DS, since the price is just too different, IMO. I simply could not have considered those bodies, and stabilized lenses to go along with them.

I suppose you guys remember when the D800/D810 was often compared with the 50MP 645z and 31MP Hasseleblads.

36MP is MF resolution territory, and it was perfectly legitimate to compare between formats and price differentials.

I was seriously considering the K-1 but new lenses just weren't there (even from Sigma), so a jump to Nikon was a possibility - but just didn't offer the adventure - that is part of photography for me, so I bought GFX 50S. Very happy with it, could have been happy with the K-1 if new lenses were there (just as they were immediately there for the GFX).

The comparisons are valid, we all know the price differences exist, and can take account of them depending on one's own flexibility. Otherwise we need to compare the K1-II with a 2nd-hand D810 and 2nd-hand A7R - which is also valid.

left eye, You can certainly do the quality comparisons if you wish. But there is a big price difference between spending $2000 on a K-1 II, $3300 on a D850, and $5500 on a 645Z. And of course there are lens prices to consider too.I think those 3 price points are different enough that a comparison is a bit silly.

A Tesla S costs 70% more than my Chevy Bolt, for example. I could never afford the former. The are both electric cars that go about 250 miles. One happens to cost about $40,000 loaded, while the other starts at $70,000 . I think the Bolt is easier to park due to its smaller size, and probably wouldn't buy a Tesla anyway even if I could afford it. There are always pros and cons.

On another note, my K-1 II is heavier than a cheaper D750 body due to IBIS, but actually weighs the same with lenses and costs nearly the same with lenses too. And arguably the K-1 II has better IQ for that same price.

It just wouldn't be a proper DPR Pentax review if it wasn't half-hearted. Read the manual? Make an attempt to understand and extract the best from the camera? Point out actual strengths? Be impartial? Nah, it's a Pentax; you know, that annoying company that won't go away and refuses to toe the line.

I'm talking about what they wrote in the bullet points of pros and cons for each major use case. There are no videos on that page (but even if there were, I wouldn't have watched them, as I much prefer reviews in text). Where is the video to which you refer?

I know other cameras can do face detect at the viewfinder, which is why I just said that if DPR had meant "no face detect *at the VF*", then that's what they should have written. But as written, it gives the impression that the camera can't face-detect at all, which is false.

It's possible they removed that part but the only place face detect has been mentioned is at the end of the AF section where they write about close focus AF. Other than that I can't find any mention of face detect in the cons section though as I mentioned it's possible it has been removed.

I had a look to see if they removed it, but they haven't. I got my quote from page 4, "What it's like to use", under both "Portraits" and "Family and lifestyle" (and I probably should have cited more specifically in my original post).

Since the lens used in K1-ii review is decentered (upper right corner is extremely blurry), only look at regions near center for comparison against other cameras. I could not see any detail loss in the fine text section above center compared to K-1 at various ISO values so I don’t think there is any concern here regarding K1-ii’s signal processing reducing details.

maybe Astrotracer would make the K1 a better camera for astrolandscape than the A7III, there was an issue with some Sony cameras that they used to eat stars i don't know if that affects this model... just an idea

I already have a Skywatcher Star Adventurer tracking mount. I used it with great success on my K-5 IIs and I expect even better results with the Sony. As for the star eater issue, it seems overblown on the latest III generation of bodies. I haven't seen a real world sample shot showing it to be an issue.

For the K-1 II, the DPR verdict here is:"astrophotographers in particular may want to avoid this camera since the baked-in Raw noise reduction is likely to affect the rendition of starry skies at higher ISOs."

The AstroTracer can't compete with traditional stacking workflows because- for distant supertele subjects, the sensor movement path is too short to allow long exposures- for ultra wide angle skies, the sky has wide-angle-morphing while it moves, i.e. stars near the sensor edge travel e.g. twice as fast than those near to the sensor center.

(continued)A sensor-only movement can't compensate that non-linear morphing. So "serious" astro hobbyists use indeed something proper like Skywatcher Star Adventurer, which doesn't create this problem (because the system lens+sensor always sees the same sky sector, so that the star's don't travel from the camera's viewpoint).

So, the Astro Tracer is yet another example of a gimmick, which turns out to be half-baked and half-througth trough, OK "just for fun" but not for serious prolonged astro hobbyists' use.

Well, Astrotracer might not be able to compete with a tracking mount properly aligned, but it produces results that i would say are much more than a gimmick and weights nothing, and as it is based in the camera stabilization system costs nothing too. I would say is much better than having nothing.

Polacofede, he is a troll. Don't feed him. If you look at his profile, it says his former gear is a K-1 II, which he rated one star. Frankly, I don't believe he ever owned one.

I have yet to try the Astrotracer on my new K-1 II myself, but it's something I look forward to. I certainly wouldn't have the budget for heavy dedicated mounts. Much better than nothing. I considered buying the O-GPS1 unit in the past for my K-30, but glad I got the new camera instead.

"Camera is quite heavy and bulky" - That "con" wasn't mentioned for the Nikon D-850, which is 2.22lb. as opposed to 2.23lb, and larger in two of the three dimensions. And Pentax engineered that fabulous screen-tilt mechanism with LEDs into the package. Top notch internal design engineering, is what that says to me -- CLASS-LEADING, to use a favorite DPR phrase. So why bring "bulkiness" up at all with FF DSLR's in the first place? They're all appropriately sized . . . but for Pentax, .03lb. makes a difference and needs to be mentioned? That's a joke.

The last K-1 Review title was, like this one, also a snark of a question "Special K?" Now we have "A Worthy Upgrade?" If your reviews of Pentax always work to imply "questionableness" crack off the bat, and conclude with irrelevancies not brought up for other makers, the up-front negative bias is clear.

As to the bulk comment, I think the issue is how it feels in-hand. The depth and flange distance of the Pentax puts the mount further out so that the weight of the lens has a greater impact than on the D850 with it's shallower depth. Torque = rF and whatnot.

I'd say it's all relative. And that implies subjectivity too. Yes, the D850 is about the same weight and size. But it has a far superior AF system and framerate, spitting out 45MP files. It has to be said that it's more expensive too. But also, the Sony A7 III and A7R III were not out yet. This most likely has changed the game.

Maybe they put a bit too much emphasis on this aspect. But standards are changing all the time.

@drummercam. Come on. Size of D850 not mentioned? "... who may be eyeing a D850 with some interest, we must mention that this is a big, heavy camera" , "and since the D850 is a bit heavy, it can be a little unwieldy to hold at arm's length" , "Lastly, the Nikon D850 is not a petite camera. For landscape shooters that are also into backpacking or other outdoor pursuits where every ounce counts, a D850 with a couple of batteries and a couple of high-end lenses are going to weigh you down significantly."

I disagree, mveto. None of the FF DSLRS are "petite." They are all at a basic par. If someone doesn't know that FF means arm's-length hold is a bit unwieldy, or it's not a backpacker's dream, then they haven't done basic homework. Don't list "heavy and bulky" prominently in the high-vis "cons" list. It's a "con" for every DSLR, if DPR sees it that way -- which is crazy to start with. We all know FF's are larger than mirrorless or APS-C. "Class-leading internal engineering design" -- That's the comment I'd like to see as a tribute to a small player still standing -- still standing -- against all the big shots, because it says volumes abut prduction capability and reliability and Pentax build quality, which is UN.BEAT.ABLE still, in spite of all the mud flung its way over the years. Bulky my foot.

That's actually a 230g difference. between lenses So the camera with kit lens will both weigh nearly the same. Yes, I know the focal range is a bit different, and the Nikon lens is F4. Lenses are never identical. However, the Nikon lens is stabilized (has to be) which makes it heavier. The Pentax has in-body stabilization that works with all lenses. That means other Pentax lenses in your bag also will be lighter, overall, and cheaper.

K-1 II"as heavy" as a tank"hulking mass of a camera""Camera is large and intimidating""Large and obtrusive..."

Do you notice a difference? Note that two authors (Carey Rose & Rishi Sanyal) were involved in both reviews. That should have led to some consistent writing, should it not?

Further note that the "quite heavy and bulky" Cons for the K-1 II was not only not a Cons for the D850, but it wasn't for the K-1 either. The only fair explanation is that we are going to see this comment for all substantial DSLRs in the future.

Also interesting to note is that "Limited uses for Pixel Shift Resolution shooting modes" is no longer a Cons for the K-1 II as it was for the K-1. What happened?

DPReview may not be aware of their inconsistencies that end up creating bias, but they definitely exist.

@drummercam, @Class A. Geez. Size of these type of cameras is a given, they are big, unwieldy and bulky, but so what. They are tools, not fashion items. My point is that saying K1 II is bulky is not the end of the world, any potential buyer of FF DLSR is aware of the size. The most damaging thing said about Pentax system remains poor AF, lack of modern lenses and now heavyhanded raw NR. Those little things would make me choose something else if I were on the market for FF system.

Comparing the Nikon 24-120 with the Pentax 28-105 is ludicrous. Both platforms provide stabilisation, but the Nikon has a constant f/4 and 4 extra very valuable millimeters on the wide end, and 15 on the long end. But your wording makes it look like Pentax is the obvious choice. It is not, you should just provide the facts and leave it up to the buyer to make a decision.

With regard to primes, you are comparing a Nikon G lens with a built-in motor to a Pentax screwdrive lens. You should pick the Nikon 50/1.8D, which is 155g, which is still sold new, and for 15 euros less than the Pentax. And yes, f/2.4 is not f/1.8, but stabilisation is not a substitute for that, or the other way around. But when it comes to standard primes, I'd much rather have a fast aperture.

@madbrain Oh and what makes me laugh all the more is you claiming your wallet will be lighter with a Nikon system. Sir, you are entitled to your opinion, no doubt about it. But I will stop naming examples here (although I could do so very easily) to prove you wrong, because I suspect the problem is not empirical evidence at all.

@madbrain This whole "my system is better" game seems silly to me anyway. I don't find it worth spending any more time on. I make my choices, you make your choices. Have you ever seen carpenters going on like this about their hammers?

mvento,BTW, in terms of AF, I went shooting last saturday in Napa with a friend who owns a Canon 60D. We shot with each other's camera. He shot with my K-1 II from the car during much of the 5hr round-trip drive. He is not a pro, not even a serious hobbyist, not on any online photography forum, and has never heard of any bias against poor AF in Pentax. He commented how fast my camera was to focus compared to his. Of course I know these are very different generations of camera and body types at different price points, but I think that still says something. The AF improvements in the K-1 II really are significant. Huge difference during daytime between it and my old K-30. In low-light/nigh-time, its not as big of a difference.

B&H says 840g with battery. Seems like 90g is a lot for a battery, but I have never owned a Nikon so I can't say. Certainly Pentax Li-on batteries are lighter. My favorite batteries are eneloops/eneloop pros or closes, which are not light. I use 6 of them in the grip for my K-1 II.

Re: lens comparisons, I really don't know much about the Nikon lens lineup. I only went to B&H to look for NIkon lenses and stats. Yes, the 28-105 is not equivalent to 24-120 - I mentioned the 4mm are important. Constant F4 is better, but the Pentax lens starts at F3.5. I chose to compare these 2 because they are the kit lenses for each body.

Sorry I missed the Nikkor 50/1.8D somehow. It still doesn't provide IS, though. So a K-1 II with DA50/1.8 should be better in terms of what shutter speeds can be handheld, vs D750 with Nikon 50/1.8D. The DA50 is $116 on B&H and the Nikon is $131, so cheaper and lighter in the US market. Strange that the reverse is true in Europe.

Of course different apertures are not equivalent in terms of depth of field. But unless you need the narrowest depth of field of the widest aperture - which the stabilizer cannot help you with - you can use the stabilizer in order to shoot at higher shutter speed than you might otherwise. This is most relevant in low-light conditions, such as indoor, which is a situation you might often use your 50mm for on an FF body.

Also, many lenses are not at their sharpest wide open, and need to be stopped down a bit to be sharp. This is very much the case with my FA50/1.4 . Not true of my DA50/1.8 . Not sure how it is with the Nikon 50/1.8D .

starbase218, re: "whole system is better", we are both on this site discussing it, aren't we ? I'm not trying to tell you to switch Nikon and switch to Pentax, and neither are you trying to tell me the reverse. But we both started arguing about prices of each system. It seems the empirical evidence is different in your market when it comes to Europe vs US, with Pentax being cheaper here and Nikon cheaper in Europe. If I had to pay European prices, I might chose a different system.

Otherwise, all I did was correct the statements about weight. IMO the 2 cameras are fairly comparable, especially when accounting for lenses, and weight should not be an important consideration to choose one over the other.

I am not familiar with Nikon lens or prices, but I do know that Nikon doesn't have IBIS, and that was one of the main two reasons I got into Pentax in the first place 10 years ago, vs Canikon. It would seem to be that most stabilized lenses are heavier and costlier vs unstabilized.

"Certainly Pentax Li-on batteries are lighter"- Yes, by a whopping 5 grams. You can look this up online.

"I really don't know much about the Nikon lens lineup"- Then why do you state that a Nikon setup will be heavier and more expensive?

"I chose to compare these 2 because they are the kit lenses for each body."- The 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR is sold as a kit with the D750 too (although that is still slightly heavier than the Pentax 28-105).

"Sorry I missed the Nikkor 50/1.8D somehow. It still doesn't provide IS, though. So a K-1 II with DA50/1.8 should be better in terms of what shutter speeds can be handheld, vs D750 with Nikon 50/1.8D."- Unless you shoot anything that moves.

"I'm not trying to tell you to switch Nikon and switch to Pentax, and neither are you trying to tell me the reverse."- No, but you stated my camera bag will be heavier and my wallet lighter when using Nikon instead of Pentax.

"It seems the empirical evidence is different in your market when it comes to Europe vs US, with Pentax being cheaper here and Nikon cheaper in Europe."- That is not necessarily the case either. But you named specific examples. I could do the same and come up with very different results, for both price and weight.

"All I did was correct the statements about weight."- Yes, DPR should change that. But still, the D750 isn't much heavier than a K-3. It is bigger but the weight is very similar.

Go on the dynamic range evaluation page of this review, select the K1 II @ 6400ISO and compare it to the K1 II @ ISO100 +6EV pushed.You will see, there is even more detail in the 6k4 ISO shots than is in the pushed ISO 100 shots. For me, a clear indicator, that the NR in the accelerator unit does not destroy any details which would anyhow be washed out due to low SNR in low light shots. If NR would have an impact, those shots should not be as comparable as they are. So in general, taking in account the significantly reduced chroma and luminance noise levels of the K1 II, the Mk II in my opinion clearly delivers the better raw image quality.

DDWD10,Switch to ISO 100, and you will see the detail in the spool is also still missing in the K-1 II image. This one has nothing to do with noise reduction, since it is not applied at ISO 100 per DPR's own review. It is an optical problem with the lens. I suggest you pixel peep in the lower part of the image which is generally sharper. Upper part, and especially upper -right quadrant, seems out of focus in the K-1 II shots.

As one can see, both Pentax shots fall behind. If this tells a bit about lens making skills of a lens maker, this would be another important system choice consideration on top. But here the K-1 II contributes a lot.

Also the thing with the RAW blurring is, that it gets worse with higher ISO. For these ISO dynamics, a lens cannot be blamed for.

Once again, you cannot attribute this to NR / accelerator chip, since it doesn't apply at ISO 100. It's either the lens / alignment once again, or something else going on in the camera. My money is on the former.

I was able to play with one two days ago, the touchscreen feature is a slouch as per DPR, the menu/button will take time to get familiarized with, other than that IT IS AWESOME for the price and for what it can do.

@madbrain, re lenses, sure the Sony doesn't have much yet, but the industry is moving and lens support will come along the way faster than most competitors. But for my case, what they have now is good enough for my use.

My Pentax DA35 2.4 bought years ago was $100. DA50 1.8 also new was $90. Both work fine in FF mode.

FA50 1.4 was bought used a week ago for $100 (actually bought both a DA 18-55 and FA 50 1.4 for $120 total - got the DA 18-55 only to sell it with old APS-C body).

Sigma 70-300 DG APO was $99 used on ebay.

D FA 28-105 came with my K-1 II kit with grip at $2400. I think that makes the lens cost about $300.

The range I don't have fullly covered is the ultra wide.I bought a Tamron AF 1.4x TC for $140. It works fine with my old Sigma DC 10-20mm f4-5.6 at 11-20mm . At 10mm there is vignetting. Incidently, that Sigma was the one I paid the most for, about $500 new 10 years ago. I haven't yet pixel peeped much to see if the IQ is better with TC in FF mode vs lens alone in crop mode. Nothing obviously wrong, though, and AF works.

That's about $1300 in lenses altogether. Seems like that would buy be just one or two lenses in Sony mount.

madbrainThere are a few moderately priced lenses in the list such as the Sony FE 50 f/1.8 at $248 but most cost a lot more and you can't find any for the prices you quote. If you have Canon lenses (which I do), you can buy a smart adapter and use them electronically coupled with reasonable AF. This has saved me a lot of money.

It's good to see Pentax updating their FF DSLR. It seems to be excellent value for money. I started serious hobby photography with a Pentax SV a few decades ago!!

I don't have any Canon lenses. I am not aware of any smart adapters for Pentax K mount cameras. The only adapter I have is for K mount lenses to micro4/3. It is not AF, and not auto-exposure either. However, it has an aperture ring which allows me to use any Pentax lenses on my Lumix GX85, even the DA lenses, which lack aperture rings.

Regarding noise reduction its worth comparing this in-depth review with the review on Pentax Forums who compared K-1 and K-1ii using the same lens. Conclusions differ with PF images demonstrating difference is marginal but that the K-1ii offered better RAW & JPG noise reduction and resolution.

Always best to read a number of reviews before deciding.

In marketing and perception terms Pentax/Ricoh should not have released version ii with such minor and questionable improvements. and to avoid confusion, used the term 'focus stacking', not 'handheld pixel shift'.

The K-3ii was due for replacement before the K-1 (KP is not what I'm talking about).

It would have taken longer, but would have been better for PR if the k-1ii had a new improved BSI sensor and addressed issues that users have asked for, i.e. buffer, more AF points, wider AF coverage, bigger improvements in continuous AF, good face detection, 4k video, USB2, and more new lenses.

Focus stacking is something very specific, available in Panasonic cameras (and maybe other MILCs, but not any DSLRs that I know of). The Pixel Shift - either on trip od or hand-held - does not refocus the lens between the 4 shots. It is something different.

I'd like to see 4K as well, but unfortunately Pentax has pretty much given up on this. They just caught up to the 24 Mbit rate of my 10-year old Canon HG21 which I sold on monday. Most cameras nowadays at least do 1080/60p, but the K-1 II is still stuck at 30fps. Really sad. This is why I bought a GX85.

USB2 - you probably meant USB3 - USB 2 is what it has. For me, the USB is pretty much irrelevant. I wouldn't miss it if it was gone. But if they are going to have one, it should be 3.0 or 3.1 Gen2. Sony also still has USB2 only on their 4K camcorders - really stupid combination if you ask me. 4K movies will transfer at 0.25x at best. Transferring with the SD card reader is the only way to go.

Also, have not tried the Wifi on my K-1 II either, but it reportedly very slow on the K-1 , and it only works as a wifi hotspot, which rules it out for me with my wired desktop. My Lumix GX85 can connect to the router and upload files to my desktop that way. But it is slow anyway, only Wifi N, and they don't allow transferring 4K movies through Wifi, only still pictures. If they did, 4K movies would transfer at about 0.5x rate. You would really need Wifi AC for a serious effort.

Madbrain, indeed you right to correct me, not focus stacking, although that would be welcomed by some, but I meant 'image stacked' where a number of images taken in quick succession are overlaid to give a less noisy image with better dynamic range. DPR demonstrated this in a recent article with reference to the K-1ii (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0727694641/here-s-how-to-pixel-shift-with-any-camera). In some respects somewhat akin to HDR but with all images given equal exposure settings.

Yes, I did mean USB 3, just like my K-3ii has. Some K-1 owners were surprised that in that respect the older K-3ii used faster technology (it was something to do with the duration of development), but I agree that for most of us it's not important. Anyhow, thanks for the corrections, hope I haven't mislead people.

As I mentioned, the K-1 is perfect for my needs, but if Pentax could address reviewer criticisms, it would probably have a greater market share, which would be good for a us all.

I saw an oppsite complaint in a Pentax forum recently, that the used market for Pentax stuff is going downhill, so that it gets increasingly difficult to get rid of the stuff.One saw that a pretty new K-1 was on offer for long, and was eventually sold for only 60% of its new price.

This was before this review obviously. But I tend to think, that if a flagship model fails the expecations, that is never too good for the perceived attractiveness of the entire system.

That in turn influences the demand side of the used market.

On top of that I can imagine, that some existing K-1 owners may loose faith and patience with Pentax, so that they may contribute to the supply side of the used market soon, but then this wouldn't be traded off with no increased demand.

The K-1 actually went up in price a few months after its launch, and help tat value until the K-1ii appeared. The price then dropped to about 70% of the previous, so 60% for second hand might not have seemed like good value. I suggest you (@dpthoughts) study the price trajectory of other cameras post launch before making speculative assertions

Ricoh had raised the price later even above the original RRP? Well, then the used price I heard about may have been 50% rather than 60% of what the seller paid for it originally as a street price.

If today the street prices are down at 70% of the RRP, then this puts further pressure on used prices as well, of course. So today, someone may have to sell his K-1 for 40% or less of the price he once paid for new. That gets painful, because the K-1 is not yet an old camera.

Pentax gear seems to burn money quickly, shouldn't be seen as an investment ;)

Maybe this should also be regarded, when comparing prices with options from Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Oly, or whatever else.

That just isn't the case - you seem to have a particular axe to grind - a good condition used Nikon D810 from a dealer costs about 60% of the original price - a new K-1 costs what it did at launch (here in the UK at least) and a similar condition used example costs 70% of the used price - it's basically the same story - things might be different where you are, but they are not universally so - digital cameras depreciate in value as they age and as new tech comes along - it's just part of the deal, and not brand specific.

Bottom line this discussion could have been avoided to a large extend for dpreview's sake and the reader's sake, if all reviews included a section called something like "How we tested" right after the "Conclusion".

In that section, dpreview's valid arguments e.g. on why a different lens was used, what camera settings were used, etc could be mentioned.

dpreview.com's reputation will not be at risk if the test methods and setup/settings are exposed. Also this won't put any IP at risk, dpreview certainly has. In fact, such transparency will further strengthen it's reputation.

Maybe it even attracts more web site visitors as there is a good chance this is valuable information people are keen to read.

The effort to add such a section is likely low, as dpreview needs to capture that information anyways to be able to reproduce tests.

What a frenzy this review turned out to be. Based on DPR’s evolving opinion of the new K 1 model, it was pretty clear the eventual review would not be positive. That indeed turned out to be true.

I have read enough intelligent criticisms of this review to know two things: There is something of an issue with the RAW files at higher ISOs and that there are some well founded concerns about DPR’s testing.

DPR is absolutely entitled to its opinions. It’s a publication after all. It’s staff will have its biases. The problem is it is too influential and has no competition of any readership consequence, so if it doesn’t approve of X camera, it’s in trouble.

If only there were other equally well read pubs to offer other reviews of the same gear that have the same reach. Then, when you get a negative review like this, it doesn’t have the same consequences. It’s just another review.

DPR is influential because the reviews are critical and informative. If their reviews were like all others (just puff reviews with nice images, specs, and just standard text) it would be just another review. DPR should not stop being critical and informative just because fanboys don't like it. Fanboys would rather have puff review with studio shots, nice images and standard text like other sites, yes, but then DPR would be just another review site with no influence.

"here are some well founded concerns about DPR’s testing"

No, there is nothing wrong with testing. it's just same bunch of people who don't like the test results. They did the same thing 2 years with DPR AF tests regarding K1. A lot of hot air but there was nothing with the tests. Just the AF was lagging compared to peers.

They are very good are being critical, and that's why they are influential. It's the fanboys who huff and puff for weeks, but in the end, facts like K1 AF tracking performance, stand. I have no doubt the same applies to raw NR issue.

I've been shooting K1 II for a few weeks before the review, particularly concerts and events in low-light and no-one including me noticed any problems with RAW NR causing any detail loss. And I presented images to guys with Canons/Nikons and Sonys, some costing twice more than Pentax. Many opinions I got were similar: people are impressed by excellent low noise levels at ISO 3200-10000 and great detail. ISO 8000 is fully usable with almost no postprocessing even displayed at 55'' large 4K TV looks sharp and beautiful. Even in DPR test images, if I compare side-by side with A7RIII and Nikon D850 I can see K1 II has very similar level of detail (in the center) but about 1.5EV lower noise - and the noise on K1 is actually much nicer (fine grained) to the eye. But this is a comparison to cameras that are twice as expensive, so not really fair. If I compare to A7III (the one without R) for only 20% more cash, K1 II blows it out of the water in *both* noise level *and* amount of detail.

Thing is, there are differing opinions about which result is better, but let me try to extract some facts:

(1) The K1II is showing a noise advantage over the K1 (filtering, better sensor ?).(2) The K1II image shows more detail than A7III and D5 (resolution advantage).(3) The K1II image shows finer grain (resolution advantage).(4) The K1II image looks more washed out compared to the A7III and especially D5. Also look at the white of the eye. That is a clear sign it will not fare as good at higher ISOs, and certainly, if you ramp it up to ISO25k, the whole thing goes down the drain the hard way.

With that said, the K1II compares pretty good vs. the other current high resolution cameras like A7rIII and D850. However, out of all these I think the A7rIII is best when it comes to handling higher ISOs:

Slaginfected,Personally, I think the K1 II image that you pointed to looks fine at 25,600. Not seeing what you mean by "the whole thing goes down the drain the hard way". Certainly no worse than any the other cameras you compared to at that ISO. I looked at the white of the eye and still not seeing an issue against Nikon D5 or A7 III.

Against A7R III and D850, at higher ISOs, the A7R III has a sharpness advantage at ISO 51,200 over the K-1 II. At 102,400, A7R III clearly does much better than the K-1 II in terms of sharpness.

In all of these shots, though, regardless of ISO, K1-II looks better than original K-1, to my eyes anyway .

Pentax users are rarely going to shoot with just one lens: 50mm or 77mm. I think DPR editors were justified in picking either -- both are high quality lenses. And if 50mm is better at the center, and those results were used, why blame the Editors! That would be the logical thing to do for anybody -- i.e. use sharper results.

The results of the test -- less grain or whatever -- is relative to the lens at hand. No materially significant difference is going to come out of changing the lens!

I think it is time certain Pentax lovers stopped their thorough hammering of DPR editors for the thoroughness of their testing. You may discount whether there is significant loss of definition at higher ISOs or not that matters in practice.

The level of sophistication of DPR testing is way above what an average user.

I think this thing is more of a PR issue for Pentax. They should have communicated it better upfront.

Edit: Personally: I welcome the lower noise of K-1 -ii, per these tests!

Because the common sense and normalized review would have used the same lens. Camera is basically the same, the test is to see IQ improvements, seems nonsensical to use another lens. Not to mention the fact that apparently one can disconnect NR, something that is not addressed in the review, and has no answer from dpr.

The idea is, that it shouldn't matter, what lens was used, so that cameras are comparable across brand boundaries. One of the main missons of a camera test site.

They accomplish that by selecting the best lenses available, which out-resolve the sensor.

However, this approach relies on the assumption, that a camera maker is actually capable of making at least one good standard prime lens.

With Pentax this may not be true, which is possibly the root cause of the problem. If a camera maker only made junk primes up to date, then there's only so much a review test site can do about it?

Sigma and Tamron can't come to rescue, because they have abandoned hope for Pentax, so that they don't offer their really good FF primes (Sigma ART, Tamron SP) for the Pentax mount. Except one, the Sigma 35mm 1.4 of 2012. So there is a single good prime lens available for K-1 II. But this is probably too wide angle for the test scene?

Tamron has only one 14 years old SP prime for Pentax FF, the 90mm of 2004. Because Tamron gave up on Pentax since much longer than Sigma, only 'ancient' Tamron lenses are available for K.

I saw in a comment that DPR went for the central part of the scene, when drawing their conclusions. This would be fine as well, because the central part is usually not affected relevantly by the flaws of low-quality optics.

However, it is a pity for us when comparing e.g. against Nikon or Sony. The test scene covers the entire frame for a reason, there's lot's of interesting stuff to use there for interesting comparisons as well.

But I appreciate that test site can't switch over to a centered micro-target just to make it easier for companies which are not capable of making good-performing prime lenses, ones wich are also good outside of the very center.

We have two options: (A) Blame the reviewer for odd choices of lenses and whatnot, or, (B) Blame the manufacturer for not improving enough in most important area (image quality), but complicating, and "cooking" the camera update and "all new features" so that the final result is not as clear as before. Truly, it can be both, but, considering that same reviewer did formidable job last time, it is clear that the manufacturer lost the focus with the Mk2. This new camera did not get anything substantially better to justify itself. A totally unnecessary "update", and a good lesson to the manufacturer.

It is a flawed approach, because it alienates existing users, confuses new users, and sharpens up reviewers to be even more critical, because they deservedly expect *more*. Mk2, based on same overall specs as before, and unclear results in vital areas, will undoubtedly get *lesser* marks in reviews. Tell me, what kind of "product strategy" is that?!

No there is only one option. Blame the reviewer, because until the lens difference is ruled out you cannot blame the manufacturer. The same lens should have been used. There is no excuse for it. Very poor reviewing method.

@ Rishi I find it odd that you have to keep hammering people that the review of the NR is only being evaluated based on the center sharpness of that lens.It only take a few seconds to see that yes the macro is indeed sharper than the 77 but once you start to enter the iso where we see NR that the macro starts to loose a lot of the detail that was captured at lower iso, to the point that once sharp macro looses to the 77 as far as captured detail

This in its self should cause anyone to stop and think as to why this is happening? maybe NR as you have pointed out.

Oh for goodness sake.... this is a repeated cycle of straw clutching by the Pentax faithful who can't bare to think that there is a downside to being a user ....

AF c is garbageGeneral AF is slowerSlow focusing lens systemVideo is rubbishStill generally excellent IQ despite this glitchDesigned for landscape astro and people walking down the park with their dog ..... but dont bother trying to shoot the dog while its playing !!!

You basically are right: Ricoh added something, nobody asked for -the accelerator unit - and neglected to improve more substantial aspects of the camera,that everyone would have loved, like buffer, burst rate video specs, or an updated af module!! Now they have a mk 2 model with a slightly worse image output than the mk 1 model...

About 1 EV lower noise level is a considerable improvement over K1 which was already outperforming Sony/Nikon in that area.

Also, measuring "detail" in this test is not scientific. If you add a bit of artificial grain to a picture, it will appear more "detailed", although the SNR would be worse. This is just the way how human brain interprets noise. In fact, K1 II has much lower noise levels than its competition, which may cause the image to appear more blurry, although the amount of detail is not really any worse. In the other pictures, you just interpret noise as detail. If you look at the part of the scene with text, K1 II text is not harder to read than the competition. Actually the hardest to read are images from A7III, which indeed has much less detail than K1 II at ISO 6400, due to lower MP.

The idea is, that it shouldn't matter, what lens was used, so that cameras are comparable across brand boundaries. Which is one of the main missions of any camera test site.

DPR accomplishes that by selecting the best lenses available, which are supposed to out-resolve the sensor.

However, this approach relies on the assumption, that a camera maker is actually capable of making at least one good prime lens for that.

With Pentax this may not be true, which is possibly the root cause of the problem. If a camera maker only made underperfoming primes up to now, then there's only so much a review test site can do about it?

Sigma and Tamron can't come to rescue, because they have abandoned hope for Pentax, so that they don't offer their excellent FF primes (Sigma ART, latest Tamron SP) for the Pentax mount. Except one, the Sigma 35mm 1.4 of 2012. So there is a single good prime lens available for the K-1ii. But this is probably already too wide-angle for the test scene?

I think it is a pity for us when comparing e.g. against Nikon or Sony. Not everyone want's to just compare the K-1 I with the II.

The test scene covers the entire frame for a good reason, there's lot's of interesting stuff to use there for interesting comparisons as well.

But I appreciate that a camera testing site like DPR will not switch over to a centered micro-target just to make it easier for companies which are not capable of making good-performing prime lenses, i.e. lenses which would be excellent outside of the very center.

@Zvonimir: I understand your point. It's a matter of customer perception and introduction strategy for the reviewer rather than what the camera can do practically..unfortunately. It's a pity to give more importance to virtual things that overshadow real world usage. If Phase One makes a tweaked version of the 100Mp medium format gear, with the same logic DPR would downgrade the new model, doesn't makes sense when you know what quality comes out of a Phase One 100Mp. Get some really large print from a Pentax K1 or K1 II and the quality is simply outstanding, I guess there is a huge disconnect between DPR evaluations and the beauty of photographic realizations.

For better or for worse, many people are commenting on the poor sharpness of parts of the K-1 II image vs K-1, even if that has nothing to do with the noise reduction issue. It's to be expected that people will be pixel peeping the test images of each camera when you come up with conclusions saying the IQ is worse on a given camera model vs another.

Many are trying to decide whether to upgrade their cameras, or even send them back, and unfortunately the test images of K-1 II vs K-1 on DPR are not helpful for making that determination due to the optical problems of the K-1 II images.

"Many are trying to decide whether to upgrade their cameras, or even send them back, and unfortunately the test images of K-1 II vs K-1 on DPR are not helpful for making that determination due to the optical problems of the K-1 II images."

So these very same people choose to focus on the portions of the studio scene where the Mark II is softer due to the lens, be rather than all the other areas of the scene - the majority of it in fact - where the Mark II is sharper?

The K1 II isn't sharper, it has the same sensor as the K1. So, I don't understand why you would expect the K1 II to be sharper and be downgrade the K1 II because of being equally sharp. The X-H1 has the exact same sensor as the X-T2, why didn't you downgrade the X-H1 due to X-H1 not being sharper than the X-T2? I don't understand.

A camera model is improved by R&D engineers using measurement equipment backed to NIST and a webmarketing agency finds that it is a step backward based on old lens and miss-focused picture chart. I'm impressed. Looks like employees of a slaughterhouse evaluating the works human body surgery specialists.

Wow, I earlier thought reviews that did not validate user’s biases would be discredited by the faithful. I failed to realize that that rejection of the conclusions would also include increasingly personal insults and name calling. Rishi’s rational responses to progressively desperate accusations seem to be increasing the credibility of the review. Testing with other lenses will follow. Other sites may come to more favorable conclusions in which case the always present commercial links on the sites will be considered a nonissue.

Let's be honest: they should come up with clearly, and undoubtedly better camera, that betters the old in most important aspects. Mk2 is not that. If they needed more work, they should not issue this camera to "kill some time in the meantime". That is a flawed approach that alienates users. And sharpens up reviewers to be even more critical.

I agree that DPReview's comparison of the new model with the original K-1 is problematic for multiple reasons, and I'll agree that in some cases the reduction in sharpness may not be severe.

But the Pentax K-1 is a camera that brought pixel-shift and astrotracer to full-frame. On full frame, for astrotracer I believe it's still unique among brands, and for pixel shift, in other brands only one Sony model offers it. The goal of these features is to maximize fine detail. So I think that most users and potential users of the K-1 series have an expectation that any new model would NOT, in ANY way, degrade fine detail, at least not of RAWs. That expectation has been violated. That's why the large outcry.

Whatever the problems of DPRs tests, there are other indicators (B Claff's Fourier transform plots, Pentax Forum's tests) that sharpness is being adversely impacted. Pentax should have made the likely cause of that impact, increased noise filtering, user-controlable.

Here is a question for the DPR staff. Why not get Sigma to sponsor 50mm Art lens in each mount for the Studio testing to keep things consistent across brands. You would think Sigma would want to supply as perfectly matched lenses as possible for the exposure.

If you can not get Sigma to sponsor the lenses you could always fork out the money and buy them to make the testing more professional.

Sigma only ever released one single fullframe ART prime for Pentax, probably as a trial balloon: the 35mm 1.4 of 2012.

Soon after this, Sigma must have lost any hope for Pentax future, so they didn't issue other of their recent lenses. the K-1 obviously couldn't change that.

The last one overall they released for Pentax was their APSC 30mm 1.4, 3.5 years ago. Then they decided to stop supporting Pentax with newer lenses, both APSC and FF.

For comparison, Canon FF sees 14 ART lenses by now, rather than just 1.Sony now gets 9 FF ARTs natively (but can use all 14 Canon-Variants when using Sigma's MC-11 adapter).

35mm on FF may be too wide-angle for the scene shot?

However, it could circumvent the problem that Pentax has obviously no modern primes with decent off-center rendering quality on offer? So one would have to trade this off against each other. Better angle or better rendering quality.

I think this is the problem. If Pentax had at least one prime lens, which was capable of outresolving the sensor, then there was not much of an issue anyway.

Because outresolving the sensor is all that's needed. But Pentax struggles here off-center, as evident from the K-1 II test.

Pentax seems to suffer from that its lens options are more or less a lens museum, but this starts to become a problem with todays sensors.

I bet, from now on, every Pentax camera test, done with a pentax lens, will yield 1000 heated comments. This doesn't happen with other brands, which have good lenses available for camera testing to start with.

dpthoughts it has nothing to do with the lenses. I was just suggesting a way for DPR to be more professional is to try and standardize the testing. Makes sense. No.

The real problem is DPR is claiming there is a loss of "detail capture" in the K-1MkII the higher the ISO. Yet the Studio scene comparison between the four cameras in the Image Quality section of the review shows the exact opposite. The K-1MkII doesn't just hold better against the K-1 at all ISO levels it also holds up better against the Nikon and Sony.

Rico,I think the K-1 II does very well overall, but the Nikon D850 and Sony A7RIII are higher MP and in some areas they are sharper. However, that has nothing to do with the noise reduction algorithms in the K-1 II.

D850 and A7RIII also cost 60% more than the K-1 II.

When it comes to K-1 vs K-1 II though, to me the K-1 II looks better at all ISOs, when considering parts of the image that are sharp at ISO 100 (lower-left quadrant).

I think DPR needs to set up a web page where they explicitly define how they test cameras. Such as:1. What lens they request from the manufacturer.2. How they provide "consistency" in their lighting, distance, color balance and camera setup.3. How they evaluate that the camera body is square to the target both vertically and horizontally.4. On the really stupid bicycle test - how to get consistent speeds and turns from the "rider".

DPR just needs to be a little more honest in explaining their methods for testing. Serial numbers for bodies and lenses would go a long way to convince people that tests use common elements across the board.

"On the really stupid bicycle test - how to get consistent speeds and turns from the "rider"."

Why would we need consistent speeds and turns from the rider? In the real world, do action/sports subjects always hit exactly the same repeatable speeds / erraticity?

The fact that despite the uncertainty and variation in our bike test, we observe repeatable trends, is what's ultimately valuable. All Nikon DSLRs and all recent Sony cameras nail focus at nearly 100%, while Pentax falls flat, and other brands fall somewhere in between. That should tell you a lot about the respective AF systems.

Furthermore, results from our bike tests mirror our results in the real world when shooting action and sports.

@PDL, If a camera does poorly in testing, then that is the reality that any serial number listing can not obliterate.

Let us be honest, Pentax AF is sub-par. I have a K-1. I haven't played with a K-1 mark ii yet, but am not expecting miracles here. Even if bicycle test is not to somebody's liking, it produces results. And that is good enough.

Frankly, if you have a better methodology, why don't you suggest it rather than blame DPR for theirs.

So DPR can guarantee that for Pentax tests, the "rider" is not riding significantly faster than for other bodies. And I know that Pentax has been beaten up by DPR for "poor" AF for decades. Again, back in the day, before AF was even available, the number of degrees in the focus mechanism on lenses was reported. A lens that has to move 270 degrees from minimum to infinity will most likely focus slower than on that has a 90 degree sweep. I know for a fact that my SDM lenses focus slower than my screw drive lenses. Just tell us what those parameters are. Is it so hard to give basic information?

The potential for variability with the bicycle is huge; methodology tries to reduce variability between tests. Build a simple machine to simulate the bicycle. Or put a RADAR gun on him with a set course and tell us.

Gee, that is a new Metric for the gearheads to gobble up. Who can get the most images at a given speed? Just eliminate the potential for second guessing.

@Rishi Sanyal I think that, in the past, the conditions of the bike test varied sometimes. E.g. cloudy, sunny, etc. which can affect tracking abilities. Now it seems the test is always done during the day in an alley (where there is shadow), and that the biker wears the same high-visibility vest. Was this a deliberate improvement to your test methodology?

K1000usr, I don't have a K-1, but I have a K-1 II and a K-30 . The AF in the K-1 II is lightyears ahead of the K-30 during daytime. I don't know how much of an improvement it is over the original K-1. But I'm extremely happy with the AF in the K-1 II. One of my friends who shoots a Canon 60D commented how much faster the AF was on my K-1 II last weekend. This is someone who doesn't hang around any forums and isn't aware of Pentax's AF reputation. Yes, the 60D is old, but I think that still says something. The comment from him on AF was completely unprompted. He was using the K-1 II in the car while I was driving to Napa. He was a little too busy reviewing shots, though, when he could have taken many more if he didn't do that.

@madbrain, if you are happy with AF in K-1 series, good for you. It is just that one needs to see the latest of Sony or Nikon AF results to compare and make a more complete assessment, which DPR does. I am brand agnostic, so while Pentax wins in some issues, it loses in others -- AF being the sore performance issue for the longest time. And I have had many other previous Pentax dSLRs -- same story.

And, it doesn't matter where you hang out -- DPR or elsewhere -- that shouldn't change the AF performance of any camera :-)

All of you have missed my overall point. As this saga slowly fades away, the thing that DPR has failed to do is establish a published criteria for its testing procedures.1. How do you establish that the camera body is truly perpendicular to the test subject. --- Just show how you determine that.2. How do you establish that the image is correctly focused on the subject. - Autofocus or manual - magnified on the LCD or just using the Mark I eyeball.3. Is the color temperature consistent throughout the shots.4. On the, ridiculous, bicycle test. How to you establish consistency in speed and lighting between tests or even test runs. (Please name the sport where the photographer stands head on to an oncoming athlete. Most venues would have the Stewarts pulling you off the "track" and throwing you out for being on the field.)

Just give us a place to go and see your criteria, so you can eliminate a large percentage of the speculation that is seen going on here.

There is no reason to establish (and publish in excruciating detail) that kind of requirement, particularly when in daily life many other cameras can do these tests well. Frankly, nothing stops Pentax from releasing its own AF test results, in its own test setup, and call out DPR setup as flawed if they find any.I am not here to either defend or criticize DPR test processes. But if they are used for all cameras, then surely Pentax brand is no exception.

Sometimes the practicality of a test, and its genius is hard to understand because it looks simple.

But, If you can come up with a simpler test that is reliable, why should that not be a new standard for every tester!

Once again you miss the point.This is not about AF it is about testing protocols. Get over your AF fixation. Look at my camera list, I know that AF on Pentax is not the fastest thing in the world and that is not why I have bought the brand.My argument is that the consistency of the bicycle test is marginal if not impossible at best and that someone - heck anyone - at DPR should propose a alternate method. The lack of consistency or the inability to specify the basic criteria for what makes up a repeatable (as in between tests) test scenarios is really bad. Testing is all about consistency and repeatability regardless of manufacturer. DPR just needs to be honest and up front about it, instead of letting themselves open to "changing" images and having to do them over in order to appear to be unbiased.

After working for the last 30 years with Engineers from two Fortune 500 global companies, I can't say that I am surprised at the attempt to play the "Engineer" knows best card. Here goes.1. How about using a electric bike - I know that there are quite a few in the South Lake Union area and it would be possible to provide consistency though out a test series. As I mentioned above, it would be possible to run the test at different speeds - therefore giving bragging rights to those bodies/lenses that can produce the highest number of "good" images at different speeds.2. How about giving a measure of how long (in seconds - or days) a lens used in the test takes to move from lock to lock. As I said before, my SDM lenses are slower than my screw drive lenses in focusing. 3. How about providing a repeatable method for ensuring that the camera body is perpendicular to the test subject.4. How about being upfront and honest about the testing methods.

@PDL, please publish your plan on DPR. Get some feedback there, and maybe somebody will see the value in it -- or you in their feedback.

Here are my observations:

On Test #1. A human is still involved in it. So consistency is still an issue. Next you will say put a camera on the speed gauge. Next synchronize it when a shutter is clicked.

On Test #2. A lens time to move from lock to lock!? How about if the lens has internal movement. So now we should engineer each lens used in some specialized manner -- remarkable achievement just because there is a brand which doesn't do well in AF.

On Test # 3. You are supposed to give out the details. Not ask for them. :-)

On #4. This is beyond any engineering spec: 'upfront and honest'. I am sure DPR staff is honest. You seem to have a problem here, not most of us. :-)If you think they are dishonest, it is time you stopped looking at their reviews. Nothing can help you here. Next you will go to HR department -- 30 years experience! ;-)

K1000usr - you are seriously over concerned with AF. I have given my suggestions to DPR. Right Here.Doing well with AF is not the issue. I am suggesting that the protocols, practices and procedures be spelled out for tests. Not individual tests, just tests. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? A link on "tests" regardless of brand labeled "how we test" would go a long way to reducing "speculation" on bias and providing a consistent, repeatable and coherent basis for test results. Your last sentence has me puzzled, you work in HR? - That is your problem not mine.

"My argument is that the consistency of the bicycle test is marginal if not impossible at best and that someone - heck anyone - at DPR should propose a alternate method."

And yet many cameras today yield a nearly 100% hit-rate on these tests. The ones that don't also don't perform well when we take them out in the real-world and test demanding subjects, like sports, toddlers, etc.

I would point to the French magazine that was quoted by Pentaxians when our original K-1 review pointed to its poor AF performance. This group had a lab setup with perfectly repeatable speeds of subject movement, yet they couldn't even distinguish the superiority of a Nikon D500 over a K-1.

Tests can be over-engineered.

We don't only use the bike-test for our overall AF assessment. We correlate with the real world, and if there's a discrepancy, we look into it. We never publish bike test results that are unrepresentative of our assessment of real-world AF performance. We double, triple check.

Then set up a page that describes the overall outline of camera body testing so you can at least point to it to show consistency. Why is this so hard.

Be transparent and honest. Remove the "speculation" on how you do this. Once you establish a basic set of standards, then you have something to compare when comparing subtle model differences.

It would also be nice if DPR would publish - for explanatory reasons alone - what the "default" settings you are using. Doing this would go a long way to the "but - but you are using the wrong settings for function <x> to work". If you are using only default settings, then you should not be shooting RAW, move the mode selection off of AUTO or change the focus method to Back Button. Just tell your community how you set up the camera. It might be time consuming, but it really isn't all that hard.I still think the bicycle test is lame.

Instead of the ‘bicycle test’ which arguably has some variability, how about using something like a model train set in the studio , with a track that sits and zags and on which the locomotive can be run at set and repeatable speeds ( time it for one circuit of the track ) and have the camera at a set position relative to the track , with the same repeatable lighting .

Even the bicycle test could be improved by using a motorcycle in a large empty car park , having it driven at set speeds ( either just by the rider using the speedometer, or by timing the run ) along a designated course , do runs at 10mph , 20mph , 30mph up to whatever speeds would be safe - maybe there’s even a race track or a bit of public road with some curves over which this could be done safely , repeatedly and without causing a nuisance .

There would be various practical and repeatable tests that could be devised to remove all argument.

Or they could use an electric bike as I proposed above. A toy train has too small of a scale, focus testing of 8ft? No, a car? No, this is in Seattle, where it will soon be illegal to drive a car into Amazon ;-P

Pentax K-1 II's hand-held 'Dynamic' Pixel Shift mode is not quite what you think it isApr 9, 2018By Dan Bracaglia, Rishi Sanyal.Then in 8 may..K1ii worth the upgrade .... Any one new to photography world will get the feeling that Pentax k1ii is a bad camera from the first line. ...Why the insist on killing this camera.

There was also the article explaining how to take 4 images and use software to create a super resolution image. The article stated that the K-1 and its in-camera ability to stack images is not necessary.

While this is true, the article wasn't posted when other camera manufacturers introduced similar capabilities including focus stacking.

Plus, the article loses some punch using the K-1 as an example. A point in the article is that even images from smaller sensors punch above their weight when super resolution is used. This true.

I think this point could have been better made to use a 1" camera, stack 4 images, and compare that to the 850 :^) that would really sell the benefit of super resolution, I think.

However, posting the article how-to and of all the cameras available at DPR to coincidentally select a K-1 as an example does downplay the in-camera stacking ability the K-1 offers ;^)

I was really concerned by all this until I checked the test results myself - I find the detail loss very minor (less than the noise improvement) except some corners where lens differences and focusing might come into play. I don't think I would have bothered had I owned one. Adjusting this function would of course be an improvement. Whether the Mk II update is worthwhile or relevant in 2018 is another aspect altogether, but I wouldn't conclude this version has significantly worse IQ based on the studio scene. /original K-1 user, RAW shooter

As for the success of this camera - if they reduce the price and make it cheap enough, it will sell (Pentax has in my view always been about bang for the buck, with good sealing and some particular features), and it's probably what they need to/will do soon enough to keep the system going. It's a high res FF that's enjoyable to use, after all

@Schoug "I was really concerned by all this until I checked the test results myself - I find the detail loss very minor"

I kind of agree, but what I don't get is why Pentax would spend R&D money on this in the first place. It's not as if the original K-1 had bad high ISO noise. And from what I understand, it's also not as if Pentax has loads of R&D money. Also, things like pixel shift and a selectable AA filter are designed to squeeze every little bit of performance out of the sensor. Why go through all that effort if files above ISO 400 are baked anyway? It's not as if ISO 400 is "high ISO" nowadays.

Pentax already spent the money on the accelerator for K-P and K-70 . It was probably little cost to add it. The same analysis on those cameras RAW files was not done by DPR at the same time, and no complaints were voiced about it then.

My own look at the RAW files provided at ISO 12800, which was singled out as being where a huge drop-off in detail occurs, and also at ISO 1600 for a more realistic idea of high ISO noise for normal people, indicates that the K-1 Mk2 files provide very slightly more detail with significantly less false color and color noise artifacts after very basic processing in Adobe Camera Raw.

Pointing to the Pentax k-1 Mark II Operating Manual for info on Noise Reduction FALLOUT forced me to do three series of tests using "K-1 RAW." A NEGATIVE difference is seen when the setting is ON across the whole ISO band. A POSITIVE difference is seen when the setting is totally turned OFF across the whole ISO band. Try it if you own the K-1 Mark II camera. Testing the camera makes a world of difference in having an informed opinion. Has anyone looked at the Pentax K-1 II Operating Manual. The index points to page 55: "Reducing Noise when shooting with a High ISO Sensitivity," One of the four setting is "OFF" "Does not apply Noise reduction at any ISO setting." Try it if you own the camera. Open the menu and take control of your camera. It's clear as a sharp lens. The results are perfect.

To: Rishi SanyalFirst thanks for your Fuji GFX conclusions. My shovel started to dig as a result of certain conclusions drawn by the Pentax K-1 II review. On the surface the review left me with questions. My background is trained not to make assumptions, so unless your methods are spelled out, I am left LOOKING for more. Since I own the camera and able to see for myself, please articulate what procedures were followed, from the most obvious onward. The blog is not the place to resolve any failure by DPR to communicate, even the smallest.

Rishi Sanyal "Just so I understand: you actually think we didn't try turning noise reduction off to see if it affected the Raw?"

Doubtless you tried, but do tell us more. Did you succeed? Did you get to the menu option described on page 55? If so, on the presumption you turned noise reduction off, what effect if any did it have?

Best to answer ContarexMan's question, rather than post an ambiguous rhetorical question in response.

The original K-1 review was good and we appreciated the work DPR did; good, but not perfect - with so much complexity, sometimes we all miss something. And then when DPR was forthcoming, all ended well.

Ok, first of all: Rishi does not owe anyone an explanation. He is not your servant ("we are waiting" implies that). If I were him, I would not respond to that either. If you have doubts about what he did, so be it. I doubt his answer would change that. Rishi has already implied an answer, but you want him to write it down. So there is distrust, and I doubt him actually writing an answer down would change that. Maybe on this one issue, but you would find another thing to criticise. It wouldn't stop.

If I am wrong, please say so. But be honest, please.

Honestly, I can't believe photographers, artists, would act like this.

I completely disagree with the image quality assessment. I downloaded the RAW files at ISO 12800 and ISO 1600 for the K-1 and K-1 MkII and ran them both through Adobe Camera Raw at default settings, no sharpening, etc. and saved as 16 bit TIF files.Ignoring the fact that a completely different lens was used, the output from the K-1 Mk2 is cleaner while still retaining the same amount of detail.They key thing is that after equalizing the contrast and brightness, I prefer the K-1 Mk2 images because there is a lot less false color moire with equivalent detail in fine black and white areas.Once you apply some tasteful color NR to eliminate the false color to both images and a bit of sharpening, the images can easily be made to look identical, with a very slight edge going to the K-1 Mk2 again.

So, in conclusion (and I use that term with plenty of sarcasm here), the K-1 Mk2 is an incremental upgrade for RAW shooters with slightly but noticeably improved AF as well, as advertised.

If you can make the images identical with rather long tweaks, no need to buy K-1II at all....:) It's easy to use K-1 for RAW shooters. Anyway, ACR and 16 bit TIFF are not the best way to convert. No any sense in your TIFF and 16 bit, if you have 8 or 10-bit monitor. And ACR is not good tool for K-1's RAW. IMO.

I don't usually use 16 bit TIF. This was only done to avoid introducing artifacts.These are not "long tweaks", this is just a tiny part of the normal workflow of anyone using a DSLR to produce images for print, like, "for real". I don't pixel peep on a monitor at 400%, but I did that for the sake of understanding the capabilities of the Mk2 vs the Mk1. The differences are very subtle but the very noticeable reduction in false color in the K-1 Mk2 images makes them far more malleable in post-processing than the K-1 Mk1.Again, this is a subtle improvement, but an improvement that does have some value nonetheless.

ogl, you may not be able to make the images identical if the AF is inferior on the original K-1 . Some shots may be missed. I own the K-1 II and the AF is very good. Don't have a K-1 to compare it with.

There are real problems with RAW's files details at all ISO, but if the difference between K-1 and K-1II at ISO100-400 is not high, but higher than ISO400 is serious. Anyway, it's not pleasant if you are RAW shooter to see the loss of details at your photos...And if you had been using Pentax cameras without AA filter for a long it's not comfortable to see the photos from expensive FF camera with losing details....

This isn’t the first time a bad lens/focus muddies the water of the test scene. Why doesn’t DPReview use the same lens on every camera they test? I think the Samyang 50mm is available in all mounts. There may be some difference but better than the present system.

One question I would pose to our readers: we've requested lenses from Pentax as we've requested from all brands. We don't go out of our way to pick a perfect lens for any other brand, so the lens is somewhat representative of what a user might get.

If the best of all lenses we've received from Pentax is still something readers complain about, then perhaps our (imperfect) results actually help tell you something about the system.

But as I've said, all detail retention extrapolations are only done based off of portions of the scene that are not affected by the lens, same with noise (where we use even toned patches), so we work hard to ensure our conclusions about the camera / Raw / JPEG engine are not affected by the lens.

There are limitations to every test, which is why we're very open about the fact that there's only so much you can extrapolate from our studio scene. There's also symmetry in the scene specifically to deal with imperfect lenses (and no lens is perfect).

Rishi, the D FA 50mm f/2.8 might be very sharp, it might've been recommended by Pentaxians as a better choice than the 77mm (focal length difference ignored).But the test shows an obvious problem: 3 of the 4 corners are obviously blurred, one extremely so. Don't you think this should be investigated? It might be an alignment issue, it might be the lens' sample variation - but people will use your botched samples to "compare" cameras.

@Rishi, for valid apple to apple comparison, everything should be kept consistent as much as possible. You cannot draw any conclusion if one lens used is obviously bad. Just reshoot the scene with the lens used in K1 review if you want to compare K1 and K1-ii. If you do not check for lens quality before shooting, that’s a hole in your test methodology that should be corrected.

LightBug: I understand your point. We did check lens quality (of 5 lenses) before shooting. Small focusing errors aside, we found the 50mm Macro to be the best compromise, with the best central sharpness. I understand there can be differing opinion on this, and if enough readers would like us to retest with the 77mm F1.8 lens, we're certainly not opposed to doing so, though it will take a little time.

As for consistency - of course we understand this point. It's part of the reason we don't willy nilly switch studio lenses on most cameras. For the K-1, well the K-1 was the first iteration of Pentax FF, so we didn't have a standard lens. This is the second iteration, and we chose the 50mm due to it's at least better central performance.

In other words - we meant well. But we can consider replacing the K-1 II shots with 77mm shots. We'd have to get the lens back in from Pentax, so you'll have to consider sample variation.

Maybe it might make sense to just do a reshoot with the pending DFA 50 1.4 lens "...is in the final stages of quality control and once the quality control stage is complete the lens will be forwarded to mass production [...] launch date [...] summer of 2018." No one will oppose that, a lens test and a shootout of the K1, K1 II and KP for resolution ;-)

Hi Rishi, I understand your defensiveness given all the comments, but I’m not questioning your conclusions, I'm sure they're fine. Just stating using the same lens would be more helpful and may give you less grief with the horde.

"The Pentax SMC D-FA 50mm f/2.8 macro shows signs of multiple personalities. Optically it is nothing short of superb even at fully open aperture. [...] The other side of its personality is the build quality which clearly follows a dated approach with lots of not-so-great plastics, substantial play between the parts and a drive-screw operated AF."

And remember, their tests were done on aps-c. I'd expect any misalignment would be more prominent at the wider angle of view on full frame.

So I'd say that DPReview should definitely test with other lenses, and yes, for fewer variables, that should include the same focal length as on the original K-1, as well as the upcoming 50mm 1.4.

And I like the suggestion for one lens type across all brands. Whether of the same type or not, DPR should buy -- and retain -- standard lenses for the major brands. Certainly an operation of your size can afford that modest cost.

Sorry for the many posts, but it is due to the DPR comment limit . In any case, I still couldn't find any DPR test shot from any DSLR that was as blurred as the K-1 II test shot top-right corner, with any lens and any ISO . Many compacts have blurred corners, but that's to be expected for cheaper cameras, smaller sensors and worse optics. Overall, I really don't see anything as blurred (not just soft) as these K-1 II test shots in any comparable camera. I don't understand why you would post them in this shape.

"Unfortunately the Pentax K1 II has worse image quality than its predecessor" (quoted from the overal conclusion)With that you are saying the image quality of the K1 I was bad. Seriously ???The only thing I am seeing is bad use of language.

I'd say it's true both linguistically and psychologically. A comparative word is relative, it carries no information about absolute properties.Just like "Peter is shorter than Matt" doesn't imply that Matt is short, so "Camera A is worse than its predecessor" doesn't imply that the predecessor was bad. Insert the word "even" before the comparative in those sentences, though, and the meaning is completely different. At least, this is the psychological effect those sentences have on me. Maybe I'm different than most people.

It's a pixel peepers comments exchange in which even DPR's staff engaged willingly or not, no matter if they 're offended for their work or not. Of course judging by the features offered from K II comparing to those offered from competition, mainly in video capabilities, justify their point of view, as it clearly shows in their final judgement. But this not the case I think. It's just another effort of compromise so to persuade ourselves/themselves as to how we balance the criteria between overall and dedicated use of a given tool. In any case the final outcome is that no one who knows the demands of the work to be delivered can be seriously influenced in the selection of the tool. And this remain a very good tool for any guy who knows what is to be delivered.But this is only my opinion...

I'd say if you have plenty investing in Pentax (lenses) then yes it probably makes sense (also if you find the upgrade to be worthwhile). I think it really depends on the use and the user. Some may find the $500 worth of upgrades (if you take advantage of the upgrade program for Mark I users, which I'm not sure if it's still going on or not) to be a great deal. To others, it might just be $500 that could be used elsewhere. It would also depend on what a new one would cost versus trading in your old Mark 1 too. There are a bunch of factors, but it does sound like Ricoh did at least try to breath new life into a 2 year old camera.

However, I will say that some of the features they added can be found on the mid-range DSLRs from Nikon and Canon, such as 1080p video, 4 FPS (which in today's market, is slow compared to what NIkons and Canons can do now, around 5-6.5 fps), and for nature/action shooters, 33 AF points is less than the entry level DSLRs from Nikon and Canon.

The Mark II does bring some interesting features that other branded DSLRs probably don't have probably, but like I said, it really comes down to use and the user. If you're a still's shooter doing landscapes from a tripod, then perhaps the added features are probably not as big of a deal. But I must say though that 1080p/30 fps is a bit sad though, as this was the standard several years ago, and for some, that might be a deal breaker right there as I know Canon and Nikon got a lot of crap from people when their more recent DSLRs didn't have 4k either.... (although I do believe some of their recent bodies do feature 4k)).

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.